I’ve been thinking about the parables since we started studying them here–well, that implies only; I’ve been thinking about them for a long time. To wit, I’m always on the lookout for some new bit of information that will help me get a better grasp on the content of Scripture. I came across this important bit of study from RC Sproul which, I believe, helps make, at least, part of the point I was making in my previous post in the De-Sanitizing the Parables series we are writing here at CRN.info.**

This is from Sproul’s book Knowing Scripture. It’s an older book, published in 1977, by IVP. I confess I haven’t read the entire book–I’m confessing since I have criticized those who make judgments about books without reading them entirely–but I don’t believe I am taking Dr Sproul out of context when I cite his work here. And these words are important because they echo what I said in my first post about that parables: We should approach them with caution.

In chapter 4, Sproul gives 10 practical rules for biblical interpretation. I am concerned here with number 9: Be Careful with the Parables. Thus,

Of all the various literary forms we find in Scripture, the parable is often considered the easiest to understand and interpret. People usually enjoy sermons that are based on parables. Since parables are concrete stories based on life situations, they seem easier to handle than abstract concepts. Yet, from the viewpoint of the New Testament scholar, the parables present unique difficulties in interpretation.

What is so hard about parables? Why can’t these pithy stories simply be presented and expounded? There are several answers to this question. First is the problem of the original intent of the parable. Jesus was obviously fond of using the parable as a teaching device. The puzzling question, however, is whether he used parables to elucidate his teaching or to obscure it. The debate focuses on Jesus’ cryptic words found in Mark 4:10-12:

¹⁰When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. ¹¹He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables ¹²so that,
” ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”

Jesus continues by giving a detailed explanation of the Parable of the Sower to his disciples. What does he mean by saying that the parables are not to be perceived by those who have not been given the secret of the kingdom of God? Some translators are so offended by this saying that they have actually changed the wording of the text to avoid the problem. Such textual manipulation has no literary justification. Others see in these words an allusion to the judgment of God upon the hardened hearts of Israel and is an echo of God’s commission to the prophet Isaiah. In Isaiah’s famous vision in the temple (Is. 6:8-13) God said to him, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Isaiah volunteered by saying, ‘Here am I. Send me!” God responded to Isaiah’s words by saying,

⁹ He said, “Go and tell this people:
” ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’

¹⁰ Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

Here God’s judgment involves giving the people ‘fat hearts’ as a judgment on their sin. It is punishment in kind. The people did not want to listen to God, so he took away their capacity to hear him. (94-95)

In fact, I shall argue in my next post (on the parable of the Sower/soils) that an understanding of what took place in Isaiah 6 is essential for understanding what Jesus said in Matthew 13–not just of the sower, but all of the parables.

Sproul makes two important points here. First, he notes that the parables are not as easy to understand as we are want to think they are. We must, as he will conclude, be cautious. Second, he argues for understanding them in context, especially with reference and deference to their Old Testament predecessors and backgrounds. I agree. Much (all?) of what is written in the New Testament is an unfolding or exposition of what is written in the Old Testament. You’ve now doubt heard the old saying, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

I think this is a fine example where understanding the context, the culture, and the Scripture (OT) is essential to understanding the meaning of the parables Jesus spoke. Another example, building on Eugene’s post from the other day, confirms this idea of understanding the culture and context and Scripture. How would we listen to Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed differently if we had first listened to Ezekiel 31 where the tree in which all the birds make their home is Pharoah, king of Egypt?

¹ In the eleventh year, in the third month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: ² “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes:
” ‘Who can be compared with you in majesty?

³ Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon,
with beautiful branches overshadowing the forest;
it towered on high,
its top above the thick foliage.

⁴ The waters nourished it,
deep springs made it grow tall;
their streams flowed
all around its base
and sent their channels
to all the trees of the field.

⁵ So it towered higher
than all the trees of the field;
its boughs increased
and its branches grew long,
spreading because of abundant waters.

⁶ All the birds of the air
nested in its boughs,
all the beasts of the field
gave birth under its branches;
all the great nations
lived in its shade.

I submit to you that perhaps the parable makes better sense, or at least a different sense, when we consider this passage of Scripture. Those who heard Jesus’ parable that day about the mustard seed would surely have known about Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning Pharoah. See then how Jesus transformed a parable in the Prophets from one of judgment to one of blessing; destruction of Pharaoh, construction in Jesus. It’s really a beautiful thing. This is but one example though, and is by no means conclusive or exhaustive. (Nor, for that matter, is it meant to upend Eugene’s fine exposition of the parable. It is simply to demonstrate that Jesus was not entirely thinking outside of what he knew when he did speak the parables. It is to show that perhaps the answers are ‘there’ and that we need to know where to look.)

Sproul goes on:

If Jesus is to be taken seriously about the use of parables, we must acknowledge an element of concealment in them. But that is not to say that the only purpose of a parable is to obscure or conceal the mystery of the kingdom to the impenitent. A parable is not a riddle. It was meant to be understood, at least by those who were open to it. There is also the consideration that Jesus’ enemies did have some understanding of the parables. At least enough to be infuriated by them. (96)

Yes. Consider this:

He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. ¹⁰At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. ¹¹He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. ¹²He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

¹³“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’

¹⁴“But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ ¹⁵So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? ¹⁶He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never be!”

¹⁷Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:
” ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone^‘ Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

¹⁹The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

Well, if it is true that Jesus spoke this parable ‘against them’, then how are we to understand it? To whom does it apply in our culture? Are there ‘them’ in our culture? Who would ‘them’ be? These are important questions to ask before we go off half-cocked and slap any old meaning on the parable we wish. It may not be as cut and dry as we think. We may need to be extra cautious: they knew the meaning, that doesn’t guarantee that we do. And how did they get this one right and so many others wrong?

Sproul concludes:

In dealing with the ‘concealment’ aspect of the parables there is one very important factor to keep in mind. The parables were originally given to an audience that lived before the cross and the resurrection. At that point in time people did not have the benefit of the entire New Testament as a background to aid them in interpreting the parables. Much of the parabolic material concerns the kingdom of God. At the time the parables were given there was much popular misconception of the meaning of the kingdom in the minds of Jesus’ hearers. Thus, the parables were not always easy to understand. Even the disciples had to ask Jesus for a more detailed interpretation of them. (96)

[...]

Again, the basic rule is one of care in dealing with them. (97)

Well, I think Sproul is correct. And if the people who lived in that culture, and understood that culture, misunderstood the parables Jesus spoke, how much more are we who do not live in that culture, and know little about that culture, susceptible to misunderstanding the parables Jesus spoke? I submit that we are even more susceptible precisely because we don’t want to take the time to know the context in which the parables were spoken.

I’ll note two resources that I have found particularly helpful. The first is a DVD series of lessons published by Zondervan: The Parables of Jesus, general editor, Matt Williams. From amazon.com customer review:

The Teachers featured on the series are : Dr. Gary Burge, Wheaton College; Dr. David Garland, Truett Theological Seminary; Dr. Mark Strauss, Bethel Seminary; Dr. Michael Wilkins, Talbot School of Theology; Dr. Matt Williams, Biola University; Dr. Ben Witherington III, Asbury Theological Seminary.

Hosted by Jarrett Stevens and filmed in locations as diverse as Gloucester harbor, the Holy Land, Boston’s Old North Church, and Chicago’s lakefront, each volume consists of six fascinating sessions. Each session is taught by a different instructor and consists of three components:

1. Historical and cultural background
2. An engaging, close look at the biblical text and its meaning
3. Accurate, encouraging, and challenging applications of the Bible’s message to life today

This is a most helpful set of six lessons that can be used in Bible School, small groups, or other venues.

Another resource that is most helpful for understanding the geographical, political, social, economic, scriptural, and cultural background to many of the pericopes in Scripture is the work of Ray Vander Laan. His work is exceptional–especially his ‘That the World May Know’ series of lessons. You will find Vander Laan’s work most insightful in your efforts to understand the Scripture. From the ‘Our Philosophy’ page at his website:

God’s people settled in the land and developed customs and tradition and culture. And so when God’s Word became human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus lived like a Jew, talked like a Jew, and worshipped like a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. Thus, Jesus’ words, actions and teaching methods, for example, were in keeping with the customs, traditions and religions of the Semitic culture into which he was born.

One way for us to know Jesus—and thus God the Father and the Holy Spirit—more intimately, is to carefully assess our 21st-century culture and Western attitudes in relation to and in light of the 1st-century world of Jesus. Immersing ourselves in the culture of Scripture and Jesus of Nazareth often brings additional insights to our understanding of the text. It is helpful to learn to “think Hebrew”? in the way that the original writers of the Text thought.

There are surely more resources available for study, but these are two that I have personally used in my own ministry work. As always, my goal here is to help you better understand the Scripture by whetting your appetite…creating a hunger for Christ, a hunger that can only be satisfied by Christ.

May you be blessed in your efforts and satisfied by His.

**Some of this post is question asking. Please be careful to note where I am asking questions as opposed to making definitive statements. I am interracting here with Dr Sproul’s work which I found to be particularly helpful.

Tags: parables, RC Spoul

In my poking around looking for primary sources on the beliefs of Peter Rollins I came across an interview he conducted on the campus of Calvin College.

Early in this interview it becomes clear that Peter Rollins is interested in a form of Christianity that is life-transforming and expressed in life changing ministry. This is a goal with which we can all agree.

Rollins states that the church (and here I assume he means the western evangelical church of the last 500 years) has placed too much emphasis on belief… belief at the expense of behavior. I agree. One of the strengths of the emerging churches, one of the benefits of the secularization of our culture, is the emphasis on being not just believing. Or as others have put it – the Gospel (and salvation) was reduced to mere assent to a set of propositional statements – this is changing.

That said, I think Rollins has swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. At the 10:40 point he contrasts the existing/historical process of the church with what he thinks it should be. He says the process has been “Believe – Behavior – Belong.” This he says should be inverted and he gives the example of a family as a metaphor. One is born into a family so they belong first, then they start to behave in a manner consistent with the family, this leads to a belief that is consistent with the family. The problem with this metaphor is that birth into the family – which stands as a metaphor for rebirth into the church – is based on belief. Jesus said if you believe what I say you have passed from death to life (cf. John 5:24). You must believe to belong. In a sense you can belong to a community without believing, and I understand the emphasis on letting people belong to see if they want to believe. I think this is a good development and a strength of young churches. But ultimately a person must believe to be born into the church, to be truly adopted into Rollins’ metaphorical family. Until the belonger believes they are just (to continue the metaphor) the semi-adopted kid next do who acts like a son but everyone knows he is not.

I agree that the process should not be “Believe – Behave – Belong” but nor should it be “Belong – Behave – Believe” since one cannot belong without believing… not in the ultimate sense. The best process, the most biblical, is “Believe – Belong – Behave.”

At the 12:00 point he is asked about belief in the resurrection. He responds, “Christians are not called to believe in the resurrection, but be the resurrection.” I understand his point… I believe it was first made by James the brother of our Lord. Belief without transformation and behavior is essentially non-belief. But Rollins severely overstates this when he says we are not called to believe in the resurrection; we are in fact called to believe in… and to live it. He swings from belief without action/transformation to action/transformation without belief. I doubt he actually believes this – but it is what he said.

This emphasis comes up again at eh 19:05 point. Here he is asked about belief. He says he does believe (though I am not exactly sure in what – this is not an indictment against him, just an admission) – he says “I hold to the belief but the belief is nothing if it does not turn you into a more beautiful person… if it is not expressed…” At this point it seems Rollins is again taking up the theme of James.

This emphasis becomes disturbing when asked how he would interact with someone wanting to meet God, how would he respond if someone asked “How do I meet God?” At 20:48 he answers this by saying the person should “…go and do what people who believe in God do…and you may find truth… do the activities and you will find the truth.” I concur that doing the things that those who believe in God do is a good start, and I concur that simply assenting to a set of propositions is reductionist, but the answer should also include some of the propositional truths of the Gospel.

Basically, I agree with Rollins (as far as this interview goes) in that the emphasis of the recent past has been misplaced. Yet, his response is to over correct, to over compensate the course of the church – and this is as dangerous in theology and philosophy as it is driving on icy roads – of not more so.

[disclaimer: opinions expressed herein are based solely on this interview… and quotes are may be slightly off since I was transcribing them as he went along]

Peter,

If you happen to read this could you drop by and defend yourself. I’m not really familiar with your work but some here are and they incessantly contend that you are a heretic. I think it stems from your relationship with Phyllis but I’m not certain why they think she is a heretic either. I’ve heard her speak many times and while she doesn’t say the words I’m used to I believe she is a follower of Christ. Ultimately though; I can’t really be sure about either one of your commitments to Christ. I wish I could be though. Meaning I wish I was God.

On another note; are you related to Henry? I really like his music. However his acting is kinda creepy. I don’t know why? I think it’s because of his voice or maybe his face. Not that he’s ugly; just mean looking. He kinda scares me. Oh well. If you are related could you have him drop by also. I want to ask him what he meant by the this quote:

“If I was gay, there would be no closet. You would never see the closet I came out of. Why? Because I’d have burned it for kindling by the time I was twelve … If I was gay, at this stage of the game — age 37, aging alternative icon — I’d be taking out ads.”

In my eyes he’s obviously gay and this quote appears that he’s not but I found a blog that contends that even though he said he isn’t; he actually is. You see I have this habit of not believing actual words that people say. Unless of course those actual words are from people that I agree with telling me what the people I don’t agree with, are actually saying. I know kinda confusing but I think you could help with that.

A few more things I need you to clear up. On your blog you state:

Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ.

What the…? Really? Are you serious? HERET…oh wait. I stopped reading at that line. Sorry about that you also say

This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…

I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.

So what you are saying is that my life, how I live it, can either confirm or deny my belief in Christ. Sounds a little like this:

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [1] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Oh that Jesus! So darn serious about helping the poor. If I didn’t know better I would say that he was a heretic.

Okay a few more things and then I’ve got to get back to my phylactery waxing.

You point out on your blog that you:

I also lecture in areas of moral theory, philosophical theology, mysticism and Existentialism. However my passion is to render the academic discourse accessible, interesting and useful to faith collectives.

Oh brother…I’m really concerned now.

moral “THEORY”? It’s not a theory Petey. It’s an absolute. Unless of course you are suggesting that people have certain theories about morality then of course you can lecture on that.

“mysticism”? You do know that’s code for heretic right? In these parts we’ve argued about that word forever. You may want to strike that from your blog. It just not worth the trouble of trying to explain it.

“Existentialism”? Again with the “human condition” stuff. Really is it important to understand how God interacts with us and how we should respond? Isn’t it enough to know that “He is God”? Just leave it at that. If people don’t get it, tough nuggies. Seriously!

My biggest concern about you though is that last sentence. “Academic discourse accessible”? Two words, in Latin, so you know it’s really important, SOLA SCRIPTURA buddy! I don’t need no stinking, two bit, liberal spouting, college per fessor, telling me nothin bout my Jesus. Unless of course he agrees with me. Otherwise I ain’t havin none of it. That’s all I need is somebody messing up my perfect, preconceived, theological box. I almost got excommunicated for quoting from “The Shack”. So no more of that “thinking” stuff for me. It’s just not safe to think. What if I come up with the wrong thoughts? What if the Holy Spirit took the day off and that was the exact day I chose to read “A brief history of everything”? The ramifications to my salvation could be catastrophic. No thank you.

Well thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
Chris

P.S. You don’t need to talk to Henry for me I just Wiki’d him and his last name is actually Garfield. Sorry bout that.

Tags: absolutely satire, really satire, satire, satirical, seriously satire

“No-one can live on the spiritual capital of his ancestors. As R.B.Y. Scott puts it, ‘The religious group which only carries on the momentum in belief and practice of an age which has passed away, and has not made its own the covenant of the fathers, will find that the covenant is no longer valid, and the living God has passed on to seek a new people for Himself.”

–Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 74

I agree.

Tags: covenant, Leon Morris

First off we are not journalists so ‘journalistic integrity’ is not really a charge that we need to hold to. Christian integrity, however, is.

Recently I’ve begun to notice a trend with ODM’s, they don’t actually do ‘research’. They claim to do research, some even have it in their URL’s. Actually I’ve known this for a while but lately it appears that the ‘chicken littles’ of the Christian family are more apt to take so and so’s word for it. They link to themselves, they link to each other, they proof text, and they rip quotes out of context. Sometimes, dare I say, they make stuff up.

For instance:

“The more I follow grace, the more I’m drawn to him [God], the more I’m willing to stand up for people being persecuted,” says Jay today. “This sounds so churchy, but I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin.’ ”

This quote comes from Jay Bakker (allegedly) via Apprising.org but it’s not the exact quote and I couldn’t find the direct link to this quote, nor could I find any reputable website who has the quote. What I did find was a lot of heresy hunters self linking and cross linking each other. I’m not saying that Jay didn’t say it I would just like an accurate, in context, direct link to prove he said it. But all I have is this link from Ken at Apprising.org. So much for research and integrity*.

If you have a few minutes to waste, google the quote, and visit some of the sites that purport it. I found (1) Link to Radar Online but no article, anywhere on their site about the quote, (1) Link to a portion of the full article with the incorrect quote, and (9) Links to Kens articles about Jay Bakker. I did find the cached article but it’s not exactly how Ken reports it. According to the date stamps on the comments and photos it appears the article was first published in 2006. The cached article is cobbled together with what appears to be several articles and the word ‘Homosexuality’ was inserted into a seemingly non-sequiter paragraph about growing up PTL.

I do have an email into the writer, Martin Edlund, about the interview and also an email into Radar Online. Hopefully I can find the full transcript of the article.

Don’t take my word for it though. Go and do the research.

*Yet another case of those so offended by the worldliness of the church getting their info from the world to build a case of hypocrisy against those who they claim are in the world. Integrity?????

The one thing that really irks my noodle (my brain), more than any other thing, about blogging is the sanctimonious feel to it all. Particularly “Christian” blogs. The basic outline of a Christian blog goes a little something like this:

This is what I think
This is what God thinks
Not surprisingly God and I think alike.
Anyone who disagrees is obviously not like God.
Anyone who disagrees is obviously less like God than I am.
Discuss.

It’s rather, how should I say, pathetic. Now before anyone think I’m excluding myself from the fraternity of pious blather spewers let me say I am fully aware of my ability to believe I’m right on everything. For why would I pontificate on anything that I’m not convinced that I know completely? What’s even more comical is the feigned offense I take when others don’t see it my way. It’s comical because I really shouldn’t take myself so seriously. Even more comical is that I feel the need to feign offense at a comment, moniker, and IP address. Is it possible I’m OCD about ODM’s?

Don’t believe me? Check out some of the things I’ve written here. Or better yet check out your blog, or your favorite blog, or your Aunt Jenny’s blog. Sure; sometimes you may mask the outline with witty banter or obfuscate a point with some ten cent words but I assure you that somewhere on any Christian blog the outline will work.

Want to be risky or risque start posting about your penchant for certain sins. Or that one thought you had about that one woman. Or maybe how you really feel about Aunt Jenny. Nah…that would be too…non-christian. After all a blog has standards and etiquette. Well at least that’s what I tell myself. Maybe you’re more able than I am to cut to the quick or rather quick to cut.

Whatever your motivation to blog may I suggest to you (and myself) that Paul reminds us to not “…think more highly of ourselves than we ought”. But Paul must not realize how many blog hits I get a day. Or the emails supporting my “ministry”. Or that one time that one guy invited me to his internet radio talk show. At least that’s what I tell my friends when they ask about my incessant rambling about Emergent.

Well I gotta get going I’ve got a facebook convo with Doug, Tony, Mark S., Brian, Rob, Phyllis, Peter, Scot, and Mark D. they really need my advice on the next steps for world domination. What would they ever do without me? What would God do without me?

Sometimes the headlines of the check-out line tabloids are so outlandish they become funny. You almost want to read the article to see what they are really talking about… though I never do, not wishing to fall for the obvious ploy.

In a similar vein, I did check out a post at CR?N that linked to another post at Apprising (I cannot bring myself to type the word “ministries” in connection with that site,) The headline in both cases is Contemplative Eugene Peterson Discourages Reading the Bible. In the latter site the headline reads in all caps, as if shouting out from some self-imagined wall.

The only problem with the headline is the fact that in the very quote offered as proof Peterson discourages Bible reading he is promoting Bible reading. DOH! My first inclination was to say Ken Silva is lying about Peterson, but when the quote you offer negates the claim of your headline, that’s not lying, that’s something else all together. (I also think Silva uses “Contemplative” as an insult – though I don’t know why since it’s biblically encouraged.)

Headline/article alignment at Apprising ______ and CR?N – FAIL!

Apprising and CR?N understanding of a man’s simply caution about misreading the Bible - FAIL!

Silva being caught in his own egocentric cultural bondage while accusing the brethren of promoting spiritual bondage – WIN! (…technically the latter is also a failure, and probably the saddest aspect of the whole affair, but as irony it is a win)

Since we decided to do a series De-Sanitizing the Parables of Jesus we had Chris L’s de-sanitizing the parable of the Good Samaritan answering the question: “Who is my neighbor?” and Jerry’s introduction to parables in the Hebrew context. I decided to look at the parable of the mustard seed because… well it is short

Jesus and His Stories

In Matthew 13 Jesus tells a series of parables and after the first one his disciples interrupts Him asking why he tells these stories. Jesus’ answer gives us a view into his audience minds and expectations.

From verse 11 we read

He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Somehow the majority of Jesus’ audience spiritual eyes where blinded, even the righteous ones. When Jesus spoke plain words they did not understand the plain meaning of it. Why this spiritual blindness? I think if we investigate who these people were and what their expectations of the Kingdom of God were we might get an idea why they heard but did not understand.

These people were Jews and the Jews expected the Kingdom of God to come by certain means and liberate them, the Jews, from the yoke of the Roman empire. Some of them expected the Kingdom to come by force (the Zealots), others expected it would come by political means (the Sadducees) and then there were those who expected God would liberate them if they got their act together and acted according to the Mosaic law (the Pharisees).

Besides all of their different views all of them expected the Messiah to come with much fanfare and kingly splendor. So for them to hear that the Messiah came from a lowly town, born out of wedlock and He then speaking of walking the extra mile, turning the other cheek, paying taxes to the Romans, mixing with the low life of the time… Jesus and the Kingdom he spoke of was not what they expected.

I’m convinced that these expectations they had clouded their understanding so that they could not comprehend what Jesus spoke of. Consequently Jesus told stories that brought them images of what the Kingdom of God is really like. Images have a powerful way of circumventing our expectations and opening the mind to other possibilities.

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

In Matthew 13 Jesus tells a series of parables that He begins with “the kingdom of heaven is like…”. So the focus of these parables is to explain the nature of the kingdom of heaven or as noted in other passages the kingdom of God. The parable of the mustard seed is recorded in three gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke and in all three it is covered by only one sentence. It seems that in the Gospels Jesus had this ability to communicate something profound in very few words and this parable is one such example.

Matthew 13:31
31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

Mark 4:30-32
30 Then He said, “To what shall we liken the kingdom of God? Or with what parable shall we picture it? 31 It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth; 32 but when it is sown, it grows up and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out large branches, so that the birds of the air may nest under its shade.”

Luke 13:18-19
18 Then He said, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and put in his garden; and it grew and became a large tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”

A Few Things About Mustard and Birds

The Mustard seed, like the parable says, is a relatively small seed. The mustard plant is a shrub that grows easily and spreads fast and it can take over a garden in a short period of time just like weeds. In Jewish culture a well kept garden was desirable and allowing mustard to grow in your garden was prohibited by Jewish law in fact it was considered a weed. The mustard shrub could grow to the size of a small tree but is bushy and not what we would call aesthetically nice to look at.

Just a few verses before Jesus was talking about birds of the air and using that image to describe unwanted influences. Birds of the air would most likely have been viewed as a nuisance by an agricultural society like the Jews of the time. Birds would be something you would want to keep away from your fields and gardens. The use of straw men keeping the unwanted away comes to mind.

Why Mustard and Birds?

Jesus was provocative in using these images to describe the nature of the Kingdom. He could have used the image of a lofty cedar tree (which also has a small seed) and of eagles that nest there. Why did Jesus use the images of a weed and birds that made nuisances of themselves to describe the Kingdom of God?

My dad loved his Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible and I thought it a good idea to see what Mr. Henry thought of the parable as told in Luke 13:

Here is, I. The gospel’s progress foretold in two parables, which we had before, Mt. 13:31-33. The kingdom of the Messiah is the kingdom of God, for it advances his glory; this kingdom was yet a mystery, and people were generally in the dark, and under mistakes, about it. Now, when we would describe a thing to those that are strangers to it, we choose to do it by similitudes. “Such a person you know not, but I will tell you whom he is like;” so Christ undertakes here to show what the kingdom of God is like (v. 18): “Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? v. 20. It will be quite another thing from what you expect, and will operate, and gain its point, in quite another manner.” 1. “You expect it will appear great, and will arrive at its perfection all of a sudden; but you are mistaken, it is like a grain of mustard-seed, a little thing, takes up but little room, makes but a little figure, and promises but little; yet, when sown in soil proper to receive it, it waxes a great tree.”

Jesus was clearly demonstrating to his audience that the Kingdom of God was very unlike to what they thought it would be. The beginning of it small, like the seed of the mustard plant. No victory brought about by sword and violence, no glorious entrance of a political hero and no heralding of a moral prophet and judge to bring a nation back to obeying ancient laws but a small almost unnoticeable event – the death of a man hung between two criminals and a rumour that he didn’t stay dead*.

As for the expansion of this Kingdom – no disciplined military maneuvers, no political alliances and no getting on God’s good side by being the obeying older brother but unpredictable (John 3:5), sometimes in places where it is not wanted and the people involved in it not the beautiful and famous. The word subversive comes to mind to describe this Kingdom.

Then there are those despicable birds that take refuge in this mustard bush. Could it be that the ones that find this Kingdom attractive are those that the Jews looked down upon? The Samaritans, prostitutes, tax collectors and gentiles?

Our Expectation of the Kingdom of God and His Christ

I think that this parable must cause us to ask some serious questions to ourselves. It is always so easy to see how other people have the wrong idea about the Kingdom but what about us?
Will we be able to get beyond our expectations of what the Kingdom of God should be and who Christ should be to be acceptable to us?
Or will we stay stuck in our clouded mindsets where the Kingdom should come in a neat way and liberate us from our oppressors with the force of a super power’s army?
Should those who find shelter in this Kingdom be the acceptable ones or come already repentant?

May God’s Word become alive to us, transforming our lives to reflect His gory.

* Just to make it clear – I absolutely believe that Christ Jesus rose from the dead. I’m stating here what might have been the perception of the first people who heard the news.

[HT: McSweeny's]

1. no1 b4 me. srsly.

2. dnt wrshp pix/idols

3. no omg’s

4. no wrk on w/end (sat 4 now; sun l8r)

5. pos ok – ur m&d r cool

6. dnt kill ppl

7. :-X only w/ m8

8. dnt steal

9. dnt lie re: bf

10. dnt ogle ur bf’s m8. or ox. or dnkey. myob.

M, pls rite on tabs & giv 2 ppl.

ttyl, JHWH.

ps. wwjd?

Since we seem to be in a mood to discuss government, etc., I thought I might go ahead and cross-post an article from my personal blog w/ a serious/humorous counterpoint – one that particularly lays out the differece between a short-view of history and a long-view of history.  It’s something that struck me a bit while I was in Ireland, where something is “old” when you can at least date it back to the 16th century, and Americal, where “old” is maybe a hundred years, give or take.  And it’s in this vein that I think we often take the expedient/short view.
__________________________________

From the desk of “all the news I need to know I learn on FARK” (NOTE: I’ve not watched cable news for 6+ months now, and all my news I get from FARK, music radio, or random discussion):

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.

The statement, issued Wednesday, applies to the area known in Israel by their Biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and as the West Bank by the international community.

There are now 128 Jewish communities in these areas, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews.

Mrs. Clinton explained President Obama demands that there should be no expansion in these communities for the purpose of “natural growth.”

That would include an American demand to stop construction of kindergartens, schools and housing for young couples.

The Response?

Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”

There are sometimes I just absolutely love the Israelis – and this is one of them.